“Usually wrong” is a strong claim. I don’t know of anyone on LW who is literally “usually wrong” in the sense that the majority of the statements they make are false; the majority of statements most people make are trivially true, like “The sky is blue” or “I’m hungry”.
To say someone is “usually wrong”, you have to mean “out of the controversial statements they make, most are wrong”. But “controversial statements” are hard to define, and on border cases, whether or not you classify a statement as controversial might depend on whether or not you agree with it. I might classify “global warming does not exist” as a hit against someone in the “are they usually right or wrong” tables without necessarily remembering to award someone a point every time they say “global warming exists”. I would definitely count “the world is controlled by sentient lizards” as a hit against someone without counting “the world is not controlled by sentient lizards” as a point in their favor.
If you have this same bias, that would make you more likely to believe someone is “usually wrong”, when you may only disagree with them on a few things.
I mean that the majority of the statements they make are false, to the point where I’m surprised when they say anything that I think is debatable, let alone correct. Otherwise it wouldn’t be puzzling.
“Usually wrong” is a strong claim. I don’t know of anyone on LW who is literally “usually wrong” in the sense that the majority of the statements they make are false; the majority of statements most people make are trivially true, like “The sky is blue” or “I’m hungry”.
To say someone is “usually wrong”, you have to mean “out of the controversial statements they make, most are wrong”. But “controversial statements” are hard to define, and on border cases, whether or not you classify a statement as controversial might depend on whether or not you agree with it. I might classify “global warming does not exist” as a hit against someone in the “are they usually right or wrong” tables without necessarily remembering to award someone a point every time they say “global warming exists”. I would definitely count “the world is controlled by sentient lizards” as a hit against someone without counting “the world is not controlled by sentient lizards” as a point in their favor.
If you have this same bias, that would make you more likely to believe someone is “usually wrong”, when you may only disagree with them on a few things.
I mean that the majority of the statements they make are false, to the point where I’m surprised when they say anything that I think is debatable, let alone correct. Otherwise it wouldn’t be puzzling.
FWIW, I don’t think I can think of anyone who is “usually wrong” either.